The Dominion - Cyril Mychalejko

Canada's Quiet Free Trade Agreement

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:43:34 +0000

Few people have heard of CA4TA

Guatemala City graffiti: We don't want free trade agreement, we want revolution, education, media. photo: Detritus

In June, Canada's international trade minister, David L. Emerson, gave a speech in Ottawa to Canada's business, government, and academic elite to celebrate International Trade Day. "I have no reservations about saying that we have not been aggressive enough and focused enough on ensuring that Canada keeps up with the rapid, almost competitive, expansion of bilateral free trade agreements," said Emerson. "Canada is the only major trading nation that has not negotiated a single free trade agreement in the past five years." One of the agreements the Canadian government is trying to finalize is the Central America Four Free Trade Agreement (CA4TA) with Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Talks were suspended in February 2004 over a failure to resolve a few issues of contention, though one Canadian Trade official said the talks were "very well advanced." Canada is now informally talking with these Central American countries to resolve a few remaining issues, he said, one of them concerning market access for exports. "My assumption is that it is an opportunity for governments to work out differences so that in official meetings they can just rubber stamp the deal and send it through," said Nadja Drost, co-ordinator of the Americas Policy Group.

A point of contention with Drost and about 150 civil society groups throughout the hemisphere is the refusal to release a draft of the agreement.

The Canadian Trade official, who wished to withhold his name, said that the Canadian government wanted to release the draft but that it would be inappropriate to do so unilaterally since consensus on the issue couldn't be released. Drost countered by pointing out that it was the Canadian government who convinced the countries of the hemisphere to release a draft of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in 2001.

"Now they are saying that they can't get four small Central American countries to do it," she added.

As it stands, the text won't be released until the deal is signed and submitted to parliament for ratification. Although the economic impacts of the deal may not be profound, there are concerns about sovereignty, human rights and democracy based on experiences from past deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

"I think transparency is a major, major issue," said Drost. "I think the public would feel a lot more assured if they knew their concerns about democracy and human rights were being addressed."

Because of the secrecy behind the details of the deal, critics are using NAFTA and the United States' narrowly passed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) as references for their concerns. Both trade agreements were attacked for failing to promote and enforce human rights, as well as for undermining democracy with unbalanced investor rights provisions.

The investor rights provisions of free trade were first introduced in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It essentially allows corporations to sue local, state or federal governments for labour, environmental or other public interest laws which they deem unfairly impeding their ability to maximize profits.

For example, the Canadian government was fined for entering an international agreement that prompted it to close its borders to toxic substances. Under Chapter 11, Canada was ordered to pay US company S.D. Meyers $4.8 million for "lost business opportunities." Thus far, tens of millions of dollars have been awarded to corporations, while billions of dollars worth of claims are still pending.

The Canadian government, in 2004, responded to some of civil society's concerns about NAFTA's Ch. 11 by revising its negotiation template for Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (FIPA). Although some issues are addressed, according to a policy review commissioned by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and written by the editor of Investment Treaty News, the reforms fall short.

For example, the template restricts host countries from requiring foreign companies to purchase some supplies locally. These requirements would bolster local economic development, but might ultimately inhibit companies from maximizing profits.

Free trade critics are also concerned with the lack of provisions to address and redress weak labour and human rights laws in the Central American countries.

The Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers (CALL), an association of over 350 progressive lawyers that has worked to promote legally enforceable rights for workers in the Americas, has "serious reservations that the proposed CA4FTA will benefit workers in Central America or Canada." It uses past trade agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA, to point out historical deficiencies in the area of workers' rights when it comes to international trade.

Under CAFTA, Central American countries are only obligated to enforce domestic labour laws. This is problematic, considering various reports by the US State Department, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), and other human rights organizations point out not only inadequacies with current laws but also institutional failures in enforcing these laws. In the Central American countries included in CA4TA, child labour is pervasive, worker blacklists are made, foreign companies have closed their doors after being informed that workers wanted to form a union, and worker wages are a fraction of what Canadian workers make. According to the ICFTU, in Honduras, Francisco Cruz Galeano, the regional co-ordinator of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), was shot over 20 times and killed.

As of now, Canadian citizens will not learn how CA4TA affects human rights issues until the deal is finalized and submitted to Parliament for approval. The text will then be available for public, media and government scrutiny. But any amendments proposed to address potential shortcomings would have to be reviewed by the Central American partner governments.

Pressure will undoubtedly be put on members of Parliament to pass the agreement as is so that Canada doesn't fall further behind in the race to secure new free trade agreements—something Canada's trade minister has already said needs to be remedied. The same approach was used in the United States to push through CAFTA, which was ratified by a mere two votes, despite widespread opposition by civil society in the United States, as well as Central America.

Cyril Mychalejko is assistant editor of UpsideDownWorld, an online magazine uncovering politics and activism in Latin America.

Cyril Mychalejko investigates the CA4TA, a free trade agreement few Canadians have heard of.

What's Yours Is Mine

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:14:19 +0000

Ascendant Copper Corporation Meets Resistance in Ecuador

Several hundred mining opponents, many carrying colourful banners, marched into the town square of Garcia Moreno, Ecuador on May 20 for a region-wide assembly concerning the mining activities of Canada's Ascendant Copper Corporation. photo: UpsideDownWorld.org

In spite of criticism and resistance from local residents, Canadian mining company Ascendant Copper Corporation has big plans for its two large mining operations in Ecuador. "We are confident that Ecuador will grow to be one of the world's great copper districts," said Gary E. Davis, President and CEO of Ascendant.

Analysts at eResearch, a Canadian investment research firm, released a cautiously optimistic report on the company in early May.

"Ascendant Copper is flush with cash and about to embark on an aggressive exploration program. It expects to commence drilling on one of the properties later this year, after an environmental impact study has been completed," the report stated.

The property that Ascendant is eagerly awaiting to start drilling is in Junin, located in the Intag region of Ecuador. The report also states, "provided the Company can advance its projects forward in a timely and positive manner, we believe there is considerable upside for the [Company's] shares from current levels over the longer term."

Perception is Reality?

As for the response to Ascendant's project in Junin, a lot depends on who you ask. According to Davis, the project has huge support from local residents. He concedes that there is a vocal opposition to the project, but by his count it amounts to no more than 40 residents from the immediate area and 100 people altogether.

"Every project has its naysayers," said Davis.

But Davis' rosy outlook may not reflect the reality on the ground. Just last December approximately 70 local mining opponents burnt down one of the company's buildings. There had been a community meeting hours earlier where people voted to burn the building as an act of protest-- nearly 300 people took responsibility for the burning. There is also a letter signed by all 7 local Parish government presidents asking the Ministry of Energy and Mines to invoke a 5-year moratorium on all mining activities in Intag.

The company faces possible legal hurdles that include the possibility that the company's concessions are not legally binding because the State violated the constitutional rights of local residents by not consulting them prior to the transaction.

"There are a lot of irregularities with the project and we want them to stop the whole process," said Isabela Figueroa, a Human Rights lawyer representing people affected by the project in Intag.

The validity of Ascendant's Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has also been called into question. Figueroa is working against Ascendant with fellow lawyer Alejandro Ponce and NGOs Defensa y Concervacion Ecologica de Intag (DECOIN), Comisión Ecumenica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU) and ECOLEX-which specializes in environmental litigation. Figueroa believes that the company failed to follow proper protocol with its EIS when it failed to consult the communities regarding the Terms of Reference (ToR). The ToR's essentially outline how and what the company will study regarding the project's impact on the local environment.

An April 20th letter sent to Ivan Rodriguez, Minister of Energy and Mines, by leaders of local communities, parishes and the Municipality of Cotacachi, expressed concern about Ascendant making the EIS public before consulting community members: "By attempting to publicize it in our zone, the company is not only committing illegal actions that are also legal reasons for nullification, but also generate confusion within communities in the area, that could lead to tension that is the concern and duty of all public authorities…to prevent."

Legal claims have been filed to nullify the study's ToR's and Figueroa is awaiting response from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and other government officials.

Environmental Concerns

Friends of the Earth-Canada (FOE-CA) and MiningWatch Canada launched "No Means No to Ascendant Copper in Ecuador" campaign on May 3 and simultaneously released a new documentary titled "The Curse of Copper" which can be viewed at www.ascendantalert.ca. The campaign urges the Canadian junior mining company to respect the wishes of local communities and local environmental laws.

"The Intag Cloud Forest is blessed with some of the most important biodiversity on the planet," said Beatrice Olivastri, Chief Executive Officer of FOE-CA. She said the company should respect the wishes of the local community and leave immediately.

"What part of 'no' does Ascendant not understand?" asked Olivastri.
Davis dismisses most of the environmental concerns as "rhetoric" and "overstated."

"This is not a pristine area," said Davis.

But he also added that the company is committed to protecting the environment. He said that despite popular beliefs no cyanide will be used at the mine. He also said that mines today are zero discharge—that no water is ever released from mines.

Carlos Zorrilla, Executive Director of DECOIN, said that Davis is wrong on every aspect of his environmental analysis. He points to an evaluation of the local environment by the Ecuadorian Environmental Organization Jatun Sacha. In a June 2005 study called "Estudio de la Caracterizacion Ecologica de la Reserva Comunitaria Junin" (Study of the Ecological Characterization of Junin's Community Reserve) the organization found that the area contained 60.3 percent primary, or "natural forest" and another 16.3 percent "slightly disturbed natural forest."

Zorrilla said that Davis will never admit that the area is primary forest or "pristine" because it would cause problems for the company. Zorrilla also scoffs at the notion that there would be no water run-off at the mine. He said that because of the vast amount of rainfall in the area and the large amounts of subsurface water, there is no way that discharge can be avoided.

In addition, he points to an EIS conducted by the Japanese mining company Bishi Metals. The company's study concluded that there would be contamination of water supplies, as well as other environmental destruction such as massive deforestation and climate change. The company owned the concession in Junin in the 1990´s before leaving after a couple hundred local residents burned the company's mining camp down. Ascendant recognizes this (on its website) as a "major revolt by local communities," yet Davis insists that any current opposition, despite even larger numbers, is a minority voice.

Davis said that the operation is only in the first phase of exploration and that there will be at least two other exploration programs over the next four years before any decision is made regarding the possible commercialization of the project. And he said that this remains "a big if."

Davis also contends that if the mine does become commercialized the ensuing development would bring many benefits to the local communities. By his approximation the mine would last between 40 and 80 years.

"If the mine becomes commercialized it would bring hospitals and service organizations, as well as Wendy's and McDonald's," said Davis.

Originally published on www.UpsideDownWorld.org

Cyril Mychalejko reports from Ecuador on local resistance to Canadian mining operations.

Chilling Gold Fever in Guatemala

Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:56:49 +0000

Indigenous resistance to Canada's Glamis gains momentum

[This article originally appeared in UpsideDownWorld, a website about activism and politics in South America.]

Residents of Sipacapa held a community meeting in mid-July in their ongoing organizing efforts against the mine. They have been meeting at least twice a month. photo: Cyril Mychalejko

Indigenous communities in the western highlands of Guatemala who are organizing against an illegal gold mine in the face of violence and repression are beginning to see the fruits of their labor.

The Canadian/US mining company Glamis Gold operates the World Bank-funded project. Construction of the open-pit gold mine is nearly complete, and the company is eager to begin drilling.

Local community members claim the World Bank and Glamis Gold violated international law when they failed to consult them and gain their consent for the "Marlin" mine project. But Glamis counters that it consulted with the community, that the project has broad support, and that international NGOs and a few individuals are solely responsible for orchestrating the "small" opposition to the mine.

"Support" for the Gold Mine

Marcelo Etequiel Lopez, a resident of Tres Crues, Sipacapa said the deception used by the mining company was both very strategic and upsetting.

"That's what hurts the most," said Lopez. "Thank God we have figured out what's going on. Now we are going to defend our rights."

Siapacapa is next to San Miguel, where the open-pit mine is located. Water resources are expected to be taken from the large farming community, and contamination of the water supply is likely.

Lopez and other residents of Sipacapa decided to conduct community consultations with the intention of voting in a referendum concerning present and future mining in their communities.

Both Glamis and Guatemala's Ministry of Mines immediately filed lawsuits to stop the consultations once they were announced. Guatemala's Supreme Court ruled against them. The company then targeted individual community leaders with lawsuits, alleging threats and violence against Glamis employees. People in Sipacapa unequivocally reject the charges, and suggest that this is another tactic of intimidation and repression.

Glamis and the government blame the consultations on a small group of private individuals and NGOs. Grahame Russell, co-director of Rights Action, said this reveals a lot about how the Guatemalan government and Glamis regard the country's indigenous citizens. Rights Action is a community development organization based in Canada with an office in Guatemala City.

"I think it has to be fundamentally racist and derogatory towards poor people and in this case mainly indigenous," said Russell. "It's a classic allegation used when people educate and organize themselves. It takes attention from the real issues of poverty, oppression and the fact that they have a different vision for what they want."

One local resident who has been an outspoken opponent of the mine and consequently a target of a recently filed lawsuit by Glamis said, "The World Bank was supposedly created to alleviate poverty in communities and they give money to this mining company. Why don't they give money to alternative development instead?" He asked that his name not be printed.

The "Marlin" mine project. photo: Cyril Mychalejko

Glamis stated that the consultations are illegal and unconstitutional and that the whole process is "corrupt." NGOs and Guatemalan lawyers contend that the referendum complied with rights established by Guatemala's constitution, the country's municipal codes, as well as International Labor Organization Covenant 169, which Guatemala ratified in 1996.

Another concern raised by Glamis representatives was that "suggestions that third parties be permitted to monitor the referendum process for fairness have reportedly been rejected by the referendum organizers."

On June 18, thirteen indigenous communities in Sipacapa voted overwhelmingly to reject mining in their lands. Oxfam issued a press release with the results, stating that 2486 people voted against the mine, 35 voted in favor. 32 abstained and one blank vote was cast.

According to Sandra Cuffe of Rights Action, the level of participation in the consultations was comparable to that of the last municipal election. Cuffe has been monitoring events in Guatemala since the project began.

Glamis Senior Vice President Charles Jeannes responded to the vote in an interview with Business News Americas by saying, "The private interests went ahead and held something—I don't know what you call it—a referendum or non-binding, non-sanctioned vote if you will."

Seventy-five national and international observers of the consultations and voting disagree with Jeannes' assessment. They concluded in a communiqué that the consultations "unfolded normally in all of the communities, according to traditional indigenous customs…[and that local residents] freely and democratically participated in the consultation process, expressing their decisions regarding mining activity."

Remarkably, Jeannes insisted to Business News Americas that the open-pit gold mine remains popular and "the majority of the residents in the vicinity of the mine support our activity."

Truth and Consequences

The consultations in Sipacapa dealt a thunderous blow to Glamis' project, even though opposition to the mine is not unanimous. This is especially the case in the divided community of San Miguel, where the mine is located and where some residents have been employed by Glamis. But all signs point to changing tides.

According to Cuffe, a month after the vote in Sipacapa the community of San Miguel announced that they would also have consultations regarding mining activities in their municipality.

Russell, who works with Cuffe, said these consultations are empowering the communities.

"They are taking it upon themselves to educate themselves, debating the issues and voting. [But] the importance goes deeper," said Russell. "They are voting to take political control over their lives, something that's never happened in the country."

Recently, many of the claims made by local residents of malfeasance (if not criminal activity) on the part of Glamis and the World Bank were validated—by the World Bank. The Financial Times (FT) received a draft copy of the World Bank's Compliance Adviser Ombudsman's response to a formal complaint filed by the Guatemalan NGO Madre Selva regarding the mining project. The FT reported that the Ombudsman "charges that the bank failed adequately to consult the local community or properly evaluate the environmental and humanitarian impact of the mine."

The article even mentions the results of Sipacapa's "illegal" referendum in which 98 percent of the residents rejected mining.

It's Not Over Yet

For those fighting Glamis, the World Bank report is a positive step. A source within the World Bank apparently thought the report, which according to news reports was supposed to be confidential, should be released. However, many have expressed concerns with the World Bank's oversight procedures, saying that it is dangerous to rely on international law (such as ILO covenant 169) because there are no tangible enforcement mechanisms.

"Impunity is the norm in how the global community works," said Russell.

However, the conditions in Guatemala point to the possibility of an exception to this rule. Indigenous communities in Sipacapa continue to meet on a regular basis in their organizing efforts against the mine, and San Miguel is readying itself for its own referendum while the mine's popularity continues to dwindle. Increasingly, northerners are becoming aware of the situation as a result of solidarity work by activists, NGOs and others.

The Guatemalan government has used violence to protect Glamis' interests. In January, the military killed a protestor and injured dozens of others. Most expect Glamis to continue with its lies and repressive tactics, with the support of the Canadian government.

The international and Canadian press still has not found the story of Siapacapa and San Miguel to be sufficiently newsworthy to merit thorough coverage.

Despite these obstacles, community members, along with a growing supporting network of activists, solidarity groups and NGOs, believe that the mine can be shut down.

Cyril Mychalejko is the assistant editor of www.UpsideDownWorld.org, an online magazine about activism and politics in Latin America. He recently traveled to Guatemala.

Cyril Mychalejko looks at ongoing resistance to Canada's Glamis Gold's open-pit gold mine in Guatemala